Sunday, October 02, 2011

Bolt ruling dangerous and inconsistent

Australian journalist Andrew Bolt was found guilty this week of racial hatred. What was his offence? He wrote a column in the Herald Sun in which he questioned why light-skinned Aboriginal activists would identify with the minor part of their biological descent.

I have to say that I disagree with Bolt's position. The worst of Bolt's right-liberalism comes out on these issues. Bolt believes we should all assimilate on the basis that we are individuals only with no ethnic, racial or national identities. That's why he wrote of one mixed race Aboriginal activist that:

She could call herself English, Afghan, Aboriginal, Australian or just a take-me-as-I-am human being called Tara June Winch. Race irrelevant.

He even once opposed a tribe of Aborigines wanting the return of an historic artefact on the basis that we were forgetting:

The humanist idea that we are all individuals, free to make our own identities as equal members of the human race.

"Free to make our own identities" is just stock standard liberal autonomy theory: what Bolt thinks matters is that we are liberated from traditional identities in order to self-create our own.

In his own comment on the court case, Bolt has explained his right-liberal position in more detail. I find it very sad:

I am the son of Dutch parents who came to Australia the year before I was born.

For a long time, I have felt like an outsider here, not least because my family moved around so very often.

You know how it is when you feel you don't fit in. You look for other identities, other groups, to give you a sense of belonging, and perhaps some status.

So for a while I considered myself Dutch, and even took out a Dutch passport.

Later I realised how affected that was, and how I was borrowing a group identity rather than asserting my own. Andrew Bolt's.

So I chose to refer to myself as Australian again, as one of the many who join in making this shared land our common home.

Yet even now I fret about how even nationality can divide us.

To be frank, I consider myself first of all an individual, and wish we could all deal with each other like that. No ethnicity. No nationality. No race. Certainly no divide that's a mere accident of birth.

So that's the background to the calamity that hit me yesterday.

That's why I believe we can choose and even renounce our ethnic identity, because I have done that myself.

This is a very radical position. He wants us all to renounce race, ethnicity and nation in favour of a self-chosen individual identity (one that is not "an accident of birth"). Why does he want us to do this? Because he himself had trouble fitting in as the child of immigrants (something I find a bit strange, as most Dutch migrants fit in readily to the mainstream Australian identity, being relatively closely related to it ethnically).

There is something narcissistic in ditching the larger and meaningful traditions you belong to in order to assert your own personal identity in their place. Is the temporary identity "Andrew Bolt" really something that matches in significance the larger Western heritage? What is he really connecting to in identifying with himself alone?

Having said all that, the decision against Bolt shows how dangerous these racial hatred laws are. I can't help but think the decision is part of a political climate in which the left-liberal establishment is concerned with the influence of the more right-liberal Murdoch press. The Greens in particular are pressing for the media to be licensed and for there to be an inquiry into press ownership in Australia.

The way the racial hatred law is framed means that it is very easy to run afoul of it. Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act outlaws public acts that are likely ''to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate'' a person or group, if the acts are ''done because of the race, colour or ethnic origin'' of the person or group.

It's not that difficult to say something that might offend or insult someone. In fact, Anglo-Australians could make a good case that most of the school curricula in Australia contravenes Section 18C. To reinforce this point, consider this part of the official judgement against Andrew Bolt:

People should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying.

Can we really say that any white person is free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying? Modern liberal societies are set up to discourage white people from identifying positively with their own race and tradition. More accurately, they are set up to persuade white people to identify against their own race and tradition. So Section 18C if applied consistently would require a massive upheaval within liberal society.

Note too that the judge insists, as a matter of law, that people should be fully free to identify with their race. And yet if a white person were to talk about his race to a liberal he would get the scoffing reply that race doesn't exist. So we have a situation in which young liberals are brought up to believe that their own race doesn't even exist, whilst the law insists that people should be free to fully identify with their race. Go figure.

46 comments:

I quite like Bolta and he has moved towards conservatism in recent years, but on matters of ethnicity he has always taken a firm right-liberal position.

When even his right-Liberal position is considered a punishable offence what the hell does it say about the elites view of the majority of Australians that would share either his or a traditionalist position?

Welcome to the slippery slope of totalitariansim; complete with its soundtrack of gloating lefties.

Lol James. I wonder how much of Bolt's right liberal views on individuality are a positive position or a position taken out of demoralisation or defeat? So Bolt decided to be an individual because nobody liked him in the playground, would his views have been different if he was accepted? Groups have the potential to be overbearing on the individual, yet we cannot live as individuals without recognising that our individuality exists within the context of larger organisations, structures, communities and identities.

Bolt and others like him can't hold up individuality, Andrew Bolt as a nation, world and army of one, as a complete alternative to larger groupings and identities because they’re not.

Many Greek Australians took the Australian option (the civic option), but renounced it in favour of the Greek option in the 1990's and 2000's for various reason's.

One reason I suspect Bolt did this was that to be Dutch in Australia would be a very lonely choice what with the virtually complete assimilation of the Dutch into mainstram society, whereas there as so many Greek's here that a sub-culture is easy to maintain.

It's an evil law, the moreso in that it's clearly intended to only apply in one direction.

Your white pseudo-Aborigines with their tiny amounts of actual Aboriginal ancestry rather remind me of the male transsexual activists, men who pretend to be women and seek dominant positions within the Feminist movement.

I thought Bolt's original post was futile and a push in the back. All the people he keeps showing on his blog look black and aboriginal. Bolt is inflicted with the visual equivalent of a tin ear. Choose your battles.

I think people should be free to identify with their ethnic backgrounds. Who are we if we don't? Soulless consumers? Economic units? My kids are 1/2 Swedish, likely part Sami. I would understand if they find this fascinating, I do. I hope they will identify equally with their Australian side.

I have corresponded and conversed with various cultural groups in my life already. I must admit that very much we equate ourselves with our own single groups as our memberships shares identification with the same bloodlines, history and culture. As I am pointing out this mindset, I am confidently certain it is in actual honesty of how each different tribes behave.

Under the nose of the occupying social revolutionaries and the mainstream media, the courageous people are camouflaging their true intentions to survive through occupations of the Revolutionaries.

The individual and the community are not at odds. They are in a nuanced relationship of tension. Personally, since youth, I have felt that I am a human being first, a male second, an American third and a Westerner fourth. The ranking is not critical-- any one of these may be at the front depending on context. Each is true and worthy of contemplation.

The Act is ridiculously easy to contravene, since it mentions that one needs only to say something that qualifies under section 18C ("reasonably likely to offend") in public in the earshot of other people to contravene the Act.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that when a public figure starts talking about himself in the third person (as with Bolt's reference to "Andrew Bolt"), more or less total psychosis is generally brewing. Even before the late Ronald Conway was revealed to have been a serial molester of mental patients and serial corrupter of seminaries, his habit of referring to himself in print as "Conway" set off warning bells for anyone who chose to hear them. Ditto Sydney Sparkes Orr in the late 1950s, who would regale supporters with such weird phraseology as "Orr maintains" and "In Orr's opinion ..."

From Bolt's sheer factual carelessness, again and again, it is obvious that he is simply not very bright. It's madness for real conservatives to go into bat for so intellectually insignificant a boy pretending to do a man's work.

All that has to be done about the Act (18C in particular) is to have so many people prepared to breach it, as to make it unworkable. Which prison will they fit us all in?

All that has to be done about the Act (18C in particular) is to have so many people prepared to breach it, as to make it unworkable. Which prison will they fit us all in?

Except the government is permitted to levy a fine instead of imprisoning you. They would love to tax racists out of existence.

I notice that Section 18D of the Act provides exemptions for "academic and scientific works and debates or comments on matters of public interest." I am surprised that Bolt didn't fall under the debate / comment exemption.

"I notice that Section 18D of the Act provides exemptions for "academic and scientific works and debates or comments on matters of public interest." I am surprised that Bolt didn't fall under the debate / comment exemption."

Thats so the international 'vilify and destroy white people community can still publish pseudoscience and hate speech about white people, ie we don't exist we are recessive mutants etc. Nulls.This law is scary its designed to stifle anybody speaking out about and criticising immigration and the lowkey ethnic 'war' against Europeans in all western countries.

"The individual and the community are not at odds. They are in a nuanced relationship of tension."

Unfortunately that balance is tipping too far one way. Its kind of ironical but things like the internet might be speeding this up. The more time people spend online in their own worlds the less time they feel connected to the whole.

Thanks for your comment. I had been thinking of the internet as a hope for conservatism, the underdog (at least on the surface), and had not thought of it as accelerating liberalism as well. Like throwing gasoline on a fire I suppose.

The "disconnected" aspect, while definitely true, does not seem like it would necessarily be prone to either left or right movement. People with the tendency to tune out would be that way via sport, alcohol or some other distraction in lieu of the 'net.

I suppose you're right. The internet definetly is a great thing for conservatives as we can discuss our issues free of censorship and punishment and the great broadcasters, which are these days left leaning/liberal don't have influence here.

Sure many Jewish people are left wing, many catholic people are interested in "social justice", one of the biggest cringe worthy words I know. Build your own culture rather than knocking others. Its also a fact that jewish people and catholics have contributed heavily to the culture of the west.

Yes jewish people are more cosmopolitan, they engage heavily in the lever positions of society. Is that because they are sneaky backstabbers? It is because they are outward looking. Its because they value things like knowledge and they work hard. If Jewish people and Asians are taking many of the top jobs then send your people out to work harder.

If there were no Jewish people in society of course society would be different. Of course they're different to Anglo saxons, of course they're less comfortable in a geminshaft close community and work/fit in more easily in a gesselshaft more individualistic and impersonal society. That does not make them the enemy however.

Our society has strong impersonal and individualistic streaks in it. Capitalism is impersonal, our industrial work specialisation is impersonal and increasingly our relations with our neighbors are impersonal. Our society has weakened community bonds, promoted impersonal societal bonds, and then a left wing group has dominated this society and leads it through institutions in the law, economics and the intellectual sphere. Yes many of those people involved are Jewish. It is not however, a jewish conspiracy. Very very many of these left wing/liberal leaders are not Jewish. Very many jewish people are horrified by what they're seeing today and the biggest left wing jews are the most decultured or deracinated amongst them.

Our Bible is three quarters jewish and the part that isn't is a fulfillment of the jewish part. Jewish people have contributed heavily to our western society, and one of the reasons we have dominated the globe is because we're impersonal and outwood looking and interested in things like commerce and don't just sit on our farms like the Boers.

We have real issues in our society today, we do need stronger bonds of local community, we need our society leaders to be brought to heel or have right wing/conservative people in there too. We do need a dominate, confident and successful citizenry. We don't need to fight over ancient and dated grudges when our memory of the horror and stupidity of the Germans and others during WW2 is so recent and we have so many other bigger battles to fight right now.

It's legitimate to point out that Jews were prominent in bringing the court case against Bolt.

It's also legitimate to point to the heavy-handed treatment of Brendon O'Connell whose case has hardly been mentioned in the mainstream media.

However, we run up against the same disagreements. First, I'm more interested in why our own political class chooses to act against its own traditions. That to me is the big game we have to be involved in. Second, I've observed those who focus on Jews and in general it strikes me as a political dead end. Third, it's a politics which encourages some to view Jews as a cosmic enemy, which then leads on to an ugly expression of anti-semitism. I don't want to be involved with that - it would be especially hypocrital of me as I complain often of the white mainstream being treated that way. Fourth, there are clearly some Jews who are breaking with modernist politics. That's something we ought to encourage.

For all of those reasons, I don't want this blog to be a place where an anti-Jewish politics is discussed.

Fair enough Mark, I understand and appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning.

You make a salient point in your post:

It's not that difficult to say something that might offend or insult someone. In fact, Anglo-Australians could make a good case that most of the school curricula in Australia contravenes Section 18C.

...

Can we really say that any white person is free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying? Modern liberal societies are set up to discourage white people from identifying positively with their own race and tradition. More accurately, they are set up to persuade white people to identify against their own race and tradition. So Section 18C if applied consistently would require a massive upheaval within liberal society.

Bromburg ruled that one can choose their identity and further, that it is against the act to to make statements etc that would offend a person of that identity.

What we need is someone like Zyngier to take up a case in the circumstances you speak of and several plaintiffs to stand for White identity. It would be an excellent way to assert White identity and cause "massive upheaval within liberal society".

If the law is applied consistently then the law must enforce White identity.

Jesse, I won't take up the debate with you as Richardson does not want to go down that path.

I have cited you the facts involved in Bolt's court case and that is enough. If people won't make the obvious conclusions there is little I can do about that.

Re. the Bible being "three quarters jewish and the part that isn't is a fulfillment of the jewish part." You must be an evangelical or an atheist to make such an absurd statement. Suffice to say that that is not the Roman Catholic position, nor is it the position of traditional protestant faiths.

What we need is someone like Zyngier to take up a case in the circumstances you speak of and several plaintiffs to stand for White identity.

Agreed. And the best target would be the whiteness studies academics at uni. They have a whole course of studies devoted explicitly to delegitimising a white identity. The universities allowing such courses to run could be the ones held in contempt of the law.

First, I'm more interested in why our own political class chooses to act against its own traditions.

The break with our traditions can be explained with the example of abortion.

On what basis do we decide the right to life of a child? On the mother's choice. Although that is not written in our law, choice is the under pinning principle.

Even though the argument for choice does not withstand any reasoned debate choice has won the day. And the reason is that choice mandates our right not to be beholden to society.

In times past a child's life might be predicated on whether it serves the group eg. the Spartans or determined by the father's determination eg the Romans. Today a child's life is determined by the mother's choice. And that choice can be as whimsical or serious as it wants, it makes no difference, it is free and floating choice unencumbered by moral reasoning.

If we can break with our own children then it is no step to break with our society in general.

The critical point here though is not abortion per se but the reasoning behind the entitlement to abort. In the Spartan scenario the child's life or death was predicated on strengthening Sparta, her people.

In the Roman scenario all life was mandated by the father and the father was mandated in Roman law.

But in our scenario the choice of death or life is undermining of society, it breaks with society. It simultaneously takes the position that society has no rights when it comes to the life or death of a child and that society must uphold this mother's choice. Such a scenario cannot last as the principles behind abortion are self annihilating and destructive of all community.

There is no great liberal theory that is causing problems. It simply comes down to what is allowed and what is not. Choice unencumbered with moral reasoning has become the highest principle in the West and that is why she is dying.

I believe the act makes allowances for academic discussion so that would be problematic.

I think the best and easiest course is to sue some journalists individually. I have records of many instances of journalists making disparaging essays and comments about White people, White society etc.

The problem is that White people are reluctant to follow a complaint. They complain but they will not take the necessary steps to lodge a complaint and follow it up with the various bureaucracies we have which patrol racial vilification.

White people need to become politically active, legally active, to lodge formal complaints and follow them through. We need lawyers who will take these matters pro bono and follow them through.

I see the Bolt adjudication as a breakthrough if we can but take advantage of the break now that it has been made.

But where does the idea of individual choice trumping society come from?

Let's take the example you used, namely abortion. The Roe vs Wade decision was upheld in 1992 in the Planned Parenthood vs Casey decision. The reasoning was this:

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.."

This is a concentrated expression of liberal autonomy theory. The idea is that the dignity of human life, and what constitutes us as human, is a freedom to self-define. Therefore, what is thought to matter is that there are no impediments to what we might choose, except for those choices which impede the choice of others.

It's a theory that ends up restricting human life to relatively trivial ends, as it disqualifies those aspects of life that can't be self-chosen. It is, in other words, a self-defeating understanding of liberty.

"Re. the Bible being "three quarters jewish and the part that isn't is a fulfillment of the jewish part." You must be an evangelical or an atheist to make such an absurd statement. Suffice to say that that is not the Roman Catholic position, nor is it the position of traditional protestant faiths."

Christianity, traditional Christianity not flakey evangelical nonsense, takes its revelation from Christ as in the New Testament and the traditional Christian expression from that time.

Christianity interprets the OT from the NT and does not take as its starting point the OT without first referencing the NT from whence all its understanding derives.

When you say the Bible is "three quarters jewish and the part that isn't is a fulfillment of the jewish part." you are confusing terms. Jews of today are Jews of the Talmud. Judaism and Christianity share the same Pentateuch but they are completely divergent. Because Christians take the NT and Christ as their starting point. Jews do not take Christ as their starting point.

To conflate the two is complete and utter ignorance of what Judaism is and what Christianity is. You may be surprised to know that many WNist so called anti-semites have your very same Nietzschean bastardisation of Christianity and reject it as a Jewish religion ignoring 2,000 years of Christianity that has nothing at all to do with Judaism nor the Jews.

Just because every flakey "chistian" proselytiser these days loves to refer to "our Judeo-Christian" faith doesn't make it true. Look up the history of the term "Judeo-Christian" and you will see that it is a very recent occurrence put forward post WWII. The Christianity of the past 2,000 years never referred to itself as Judeo-Christian and would have scorned anyone for doing so.

People like you need to decide whether you want to be a Jew, that is a Jew of the Talmud, or a Christian, that is traditional Christian not Zionist evangelical heretical type Christian.

Be careful when you say Christ was a Jew because Christ specifically admonished the Pharisees and Sadducees for their ways. And those ways are the ways of Jews furthered through the Talmud which Christ never knew.

You are conflating two very different religions with the one term "Jew".

Jesus appeared as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesy foretelling the coming of the Messiah. He and others explained his coming as the fulfillment of this prophesy and how it was in accordance with Jewish scripture. This is why the first converts were Jews, why the revelation was first given to the Jews and why there are so many references to Old Testament scripture in the New Testament. You'll have to forgive me as I don't seem to know as much about Judaism as you seem to but the Old Testament is the story and revelation of the Jewish people prior to the coming of Jesus and that is as I say the majority of our Bible.

"Old Testament is the story and revelation of the Jewish people prior to the coming of Jesus and that is as I say the majority of our Bible."

And those "Jewish" people are not the Jews of today. Judaism is Talmudic.

So when people say "Jesus was a Jew" or the OT is Jewish, or that Jesus was a Jew and then make the gross error of thinking that the Jews of today are the Jews of that time they are, as I said, making a gross error.

It dose not help to refer to the OT as Jewish or Christ as Jewish unless you distinguish between post Christ Judaism and the Judaism of that time. In fact you will lead people into error.

"He and others explained his coming as the fulfillment of this prophesy and how it was in accordance with Jewish scripture."

Right, and that interpretation of Scripture the Jews rejected and reject. Christ as God's only begotten Son, by whose death and resurrection we are saved, as foretold in the OT is NOT what Jews believe, in fact to them it is an abomination of the OT. That is one of the reason's why they crucified Him.

So it is completely absurd to state that He was a Jew, that we Christians share the OT as Judeo-Christians. You may as well agree with the Muslims that they worship Christ as a prophet. It makes as much sense, which is none at all.

It is a complete misunderstanding of what Christianity is and what Judaism is and what Islam is.

Its no insight to say that Jewish people don't accept Jesus as the Messiah. That doesn't mean that our religion hasn't been massively influenced by Judaism. Oh wait sorry pre Christian Judaism. Or that it hasn't come out of the Jewish tradition.

To refer to Islam is anaccurate as that came after both Judaism and Christianity and Islam directly rejects both. Whilst Judaism hasn't been heavily influenced by Christianity as it predates it and Christianity hasn't been influenced by Islam as it predates it, Christianity on the other hand has certainly been heavily influenced by Judaism as it postdates it and incorporates it in OT and also in the NT.

Islam denies the divinity of Jesus and does not incorporate the Bible into the Koran. Christianity accepts OT Judaism, incorporates it into the Bible and acts as a fulfilment of Judaic prophesis. Divergence between Christians and Jews after Jesus does not deny this history.

Ok Jesse, since you like your Christianity thoroughly Judaic let me quote a Rabbi on the subject:

"Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity; and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism."Rabbi Eliezar Berkowitz,chairman Jewish philosophy department at Hebrew Theological College, 1966

Another quote:

"It is a mistake to believe that Christianity is the decendent of modern Judaism. Instead, it is much closer to the truth to state that from the matrix of ideas surrounding the end of the Second Temple era emerged two religions, Christianity and rabbinical Judaism, both of which claimed continuity with the original religion. They are not parent and child; they are brothers. As were Cain and Abel."John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, 1999

Judaism and Christianity are fundamentally different. If they weren't then they would be the same and there would be no need to be a Christian as you would be a Jew, and vice versa.

They share the Pentateuch of which they are thoroughly divergent in interpretation. They are two streams of thought, like two rivers that share the same source water but travel different courses. They are two completely different rivers.

As the Rabbi said, they reject each other, and they do so at the fountainhead.

"Christianity accepts OT Judaism" No - it does not.

Christianity is premised in Christ. Christianity interprets the OT through the revelation of Christ. Jews do not accept Christ fullstop. Therefore, what you call OT Judaism IS NOT what Jews call OT Judaism.

Please, you need to get your head straight on this fundamental understanding of Christianity as well as Judaism.

The Jewish scholar Dr. Joseph Klausner in his book Jesus of Nazareth expressed the Judaic viewpoint that "there was something contrary to the world outlook of Israel" in Christ's teachings, "a new teaching so irreconcilable with the spirit of Judaism, " containing "within it the germs from which there could and must develop in course of time a non-Jewish and even anti-Jewish teaching."

Dr. Klausner quotes the outstanding Christian theologian, Adolf Harnack, who in his last work rejected the hypothesis of the Jewish origin of Christ's doctrine: "Virtually every word He taught is made to be of permanent and universal humanitarian interest. The Messianic features are abolished entirely, and virtually no importance is attached to Judaism in its capacity of Jesus' environment."

Of course they're different religions that was not the issue, the issue was whether Judaism heavily impacted Christianity and that's obvoius. The amount of ink that gets spilt on this subject indicates the difficulty when one religion grows out of another one.

The amount of ink that gets spilt on this subject indicates the difficulty when one religion grows out of another one.

Mate you are simply repeating the same thing over and over. One religion didn't grow out of another, you obviously aren't listening to anything I have said or quoted.

Christianity did not grow out of Judaism, it is, for the ten millionth time a completely different religion that shares some books with the other religion.

Catholicism, which is the original Christian faith from which all others are offshoots is a fusion of Greek philosophy, Roman law, Pagan ritual and Jewish monotheism. It is not like Judaism, it shares very little in common with Judaism other than some OT readings and monotheism which is actually a trinity - anathema to Judaism.

The only difficulty here is that modern Christians have no theological, historical or philosophical underpinnings to their faith any more.

Man, I thought I had it tough arguing with my WNist brothers who are "anti-xtian". This is why they have this perverse attitude that Christianity is a Jewish religion. Even Christians believe it now.

Oh well, in the scheme of things it doesn't matter. The whole edifice of the West is rotten now and about to be sunk without a trace, just drooling evangelicals speaking in tongues and praying for the 3rd Temple standing as the last laugh on Christianity.

Cheer up mate you argued your case well. I can't think of any other religion that just "shares some books" with another though. I must be reading another Bible, I was reading Acts today and there was Paul standing up in court saying the Christianity was a break away from Judaism but that it wasn't incompatible with much Jewish teachings. All the early Jewish Christians followed the Mosaic law and who did they preach to first? The Jews, because they were racially Jewish and were citing the same scriptures as the Jews.

As for arguing your case to White Nationalists, their attitudes are hardly compatible with Christianity. I don't remember hearing Jesus say that we should throw out or lynch the foreigner. I keep some of my views in spite of Christianity not because of it. I'd lay off the evangelicals too, at least they believe and they're one thing in our society that’s on the front foot.

I'm not saying that it is and I support it strongly. I'm not sure that its consistent with the teachings of Jesus though who sent the message to all nations and encouraged us to look beyond our national boundaries.

Jesse_7 said...Thanks of [sic] the link. Not all neoconservatives are Jews though.

Thursday, 13 October 2011 11:22:00 AM AEDT

Briefly responding here because I don't want to get into *this* topic. To say that not *all* neoconservatives are Jews is factually true but it misses the point, i.e., not seeing the forest for the trees.

This is the same form of argumentation as when one tells a liberal that blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes, disproportionate for their percentage of the population. Upon being told this, I have had a liberal tell me that whites commit crimes as well. And that, to their mind, was an effective rebuttal.

Well, yes, of course, whites do commit crimes but what I am emphasizing is the *frequency* or likelihood of a certain aggregate to commit crimes out of all proportion to their size in the overall population as compared to the rest of the population.

So, yes, there are non-Jewish neoconservatives but the overwhelming preponderance of its members self-identify as Jewish.

The title of the book "The Jewish spirit of revolution" could just as easily have been said of the Scots. They were dynamic innovators in the economic and philosophical field and totally shook up our societies. Do we walk around talking about the Scottish cabal? No that would lack the sufficient basis of exoticness and outsider status. Lets try to lift our game a little.

Jesse_7 said...The title of the book "The Jewish spirit of revolution" could just as easily have been said of the Scots. They were dynamic innovators in the economic and philosophical field and totally shook up our societies. Do we walk around talking about the Scottish cabal? No that would lack the sufficient basis of exoticness and outsider status. Lets try to lift our game a little.

Friday, 14 October 2011 8:39:00 AM AEDT

Yes, I suppose that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn should also “lift his game a little” since the final (two volume) book he wrote, “Two Hundred Years Together,” treats the topic of the Jews exclusively. No mention of the Scots; perhaps he just didn't get around to writing a book on those pesky, collusive Highlanders.

Filipino's collude, Han Chinese collude, Indians (south east Asia) collude, and yes, Ashkenazi Jews collude. That's a fact: hide your head in the sand all you like if you must.

Mark Richardson has written that discussion of the JQ is a political dead end, and I agree. It is a legitimate topic for the intellectually curious because for the intellectually curious all topics are legitimate. But I agree that it does not follow from this knowledge that the past can be undone or fixed; we must move forward from here. I also agree that the Enlightenment and Secular Humanism preceded and paved the way for liberalism and that Jewish involvement in these was minimal.

That being said, there are two kinds of “extremists” on the topic of the JQ: those who think Jews are responsible for everything bad that has befallen the West and those who believe Jews (as a group) are responsible for nothing bad that has happened to the West. I believe I hold the moderate position that acknowledges strong Jewish involvement in movements deleterious to the West, communism, feminism, Freudian psychology, to name just a few examples, but I do not extrapolate from this and hold enmity towards all Jews as is manifest in the links to Jewish writers I provided in my previous comment. Many of our hostile elite are non-Jewish. If people stopped watching TV and canceled their cable subscriptions then at least one-third of the problem would be solved. Homeschooling would solve another one-third of the problem.

Finally, for those with their heads firmly stuck in the sand, the following link to a mainstream source will not prove illuminating; I provide it here nonetheless for the casual passersby for whom intellectual curiosity trumps scaredy-cat conformity to “respectable opinion”: